web_read
Fetch a public URL as bounded clean markdown-ish text with metadata, links, JSON-LD, and content hash for agent research and verification.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| maxChars | No | ||
| includeLinks | No |
PAYNE Commercial Truth & Machine Revenue Exchange
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the output is 'bounded' (implying maxChars) and 'clean' (suggesting content filtering), and lists output components (metadata, links, JSON-LD, content hash). However, it does not address potential behaviors such as redirects, JavaScript execution, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and follows with the resource and output details, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is sparse. It lists output components but does not explain the return format, error conditions, or edge cases. The description is adequate for a simple fetch tool, but it lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully anticipate behavior in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), and the description does not explain the parameters. Though 'bounded' hints at maxChars and 'clean' hints at filtering, the description does not clarify the meaning or effect of url, maxChars, or includeLinks. This fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Fetch a public URL') and specifies the output format ('bounded clean markdown-ish text with metadata, links, JSON-LD, and content hash'). It also indicates the intended use ('for agent research and verification'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a general purpose ('agent research and verification'), but lacks comparisons to sibling tools or specific conditions that would favor this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct targets—Base reads, web research, opportunity search, and gating—but a few overlapping 'verify' and 'gate' tools could blur boundaries for an agent, especially verify_commercial_truth and verify_deadline_eligibility. Descriptions do differentiate them, so misuse is unlikely with careful prompting.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use snake_case and are internally consistent for the base_* cluster, but outside of that, some tool names are nouns while others are verbs (e.g., domain_intelligence, web_read, vendor_verification). This mixed convention makes it less predictable than a strict verb_noun pattern.
Tool Count4/5
21 tools is on the high side of the comfortable range, but the server covers a broad scope: blockchain reads, web/content intelligence, opportunity discovery, commercial verification, and preflight gates. Each tool has a distinct role, though a few feel marginal rather than essential for a leaner setup.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the main workflows you'd expect: reading blockchain state, researching and verifying web snippets, tracking opportunities, and blocking bad actions with a fee preflight. The notable gap is an explicit execution step—there is no actual sending, bidding, or payment action beyond the x402 preflight. That is a reasonable boundary for a read/preflight tool suite.